May We Re-visit "The Brights"?

We have had this discussion before, so I ask for your indulgence.

The word "atheist" is a negative; ie. "without god".

I do not chose to describe myself as something I am not. It gives undeserved credence to theism.

The Brights http://www.the-brights.net/ have addressed this issue. We (I am a Bright) define ourselves only in terms of what we are, not what we are not.

This is an affirmative and positive way of describing ourselves, and a step toward a more non-defensive posture for freethinkers.

At least 'freethinker' gives some idea of the kind of person it refers to. 'Bright' could as easily refer to a happy-clappy Christian. And some people will take it as "we're clever, but you're not", which they'd see as exclusionary arrogance.

I like the organizational concept of The Brights. But the term Freethinker is appealing.

Many atheists and freethinkers naturally shy away from ANY type of "organization." I'm one of them.

Personally, I don't like the superiority connotations of the word "bright," and I'm perfectly happy calling myself an atheist. I'd much rather we take back that term than invent or borrow something else.

organization is a good way to reach a lot of people, but I understand what you are saying. I'm willing to compromise on this one.

although as a bad Buddhist, I don't shrink from "enlightened."

I'm an atheist not only because by the age of 10 I realized nobody was at the other end of my childhood prayers, but also because there have been millions of gods through human history, each all powerful in his own time, and men feared them. Those gods have passed into oblivion and these will, too, probably to be supplanted by even sillier gods.

It's just not a term I would ever apply to myself. I'm an atheist — among other things. It's not all that I am and there are many other words that I would use to describe myself. Just some of those words are disabled, fat, humanist, geek, liberal, male, materialist, progressive, and utilitarian. I see no reason to have one all encompassing term to describe the essence of salvorhardiness and that's why I dislike the term Brights.

The Brights seek to use Bright as an overarching term for a variety of words, not just atheism. I think there's a problem in that. The Brights are trying to create a new label. We've become so enamored of labels in recent years that we've come to have rampant 1 dimensional thinking that promotes a sort of "No true Scotsman" mentality.

"Larry disagrees with me on Issue X therefore he can't be a real Bright."

We've practically lost the ability to see people as complex, unique individuals informed by a variety of experiences. We want to slap a handy label on them and get on with the real business of hating.

If you like the term Bright, by all means use it. I'll respect you and I respect what the Brights are trying to do. I just don't agree with the need for a new label.

Bright sounds a bit condescending, like we're better than everyone else. We can't really own Free Thinker either, since there are free thinking spiritual types. So there is a problem in using qualities or attributes of an atheist like free thinking, rather than what the atheist believes.

I don't know if there is a single word that can fully describe what an atheist believes, other than atheism. If this is so, then it's necessary to invent or word or redefine an existing word such as bright, to have this implied secondary meaning, which may work. It's hard to say whether it would catch on, but it might, just like the term internet did in the last 15 years.



But you'd have the last laugh if 15 years from now we're all calling ourselves brights. :)

When people ask me which church we go to, I always just say, "None, we're secular" and that's that.

Most folks don't REALLY know what I mean, but they get the picture.

secular usually doesn't really define one's religious views directly, rather it expresses a sociological view, such as being a secular humanist or a secular government that excercises separation of church and state in contrast to a theocracy.

I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to try for a less negative sounding term than Atheist, but I'm happy with it myself. But I also live in a region where Atheists don't have to feel worried about saying it out loud.

It may be one of those things like Dawkins suggests that may take longer to achieve acceptance of, but once it does, it will have a more proufound influence. The good news is that change is happening faster now than it ever was, and what took 2,000 years to get to this point will probably take only a few generations. I look at Europe for a clue as to how religiosity is on the wane.

the term atheist.:evilgrin: As salvorhardin said, it is just one aspect of the many things that I am. To be honest, I can rarely get too excited about labels. If that is what you want to call yourself, fine with me. I will stick with atheist.

I'm an unaffiliated Theravada Buddhist who's found chanting in Pali unproductive and haggling over the finer points of Buddhist theory to be a bit silly and compassion toward Limbecile Dildoheads nearly impossible, especially when they're in my face and screaming hatred.

However, Buddhism implies atheism to anyone who knows the least bit about it. Since most fundies are spiritually illiterate, that pretty much lets me off the hook, although I do tell them whenever they start spouting garbage about how horrible those immoral atheists are.

So I already have a positive way of describing myself, but your alternative is a great one for others who are struggling to define themselves as ethical people who no longer believe in fairies.

I believe in Us!

:)

I honestly "believe" that if religion and god are so unimportant in our lives then what we are called is not important either. Who's got time for nonsense when you are busy living in the now.

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have.

Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason.

Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Isaac Asimov, interview with Paul Kurtz:


http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/asimov2.htm

is that the term is so ambiguous that when you use it, you have to accompany it with the definition. So why have a word that doesn't mean anything? And if it should catch on in this way, what would you use to describe a light or a precocious student?

I also agree that it sounds condescending. I use atheist unless I don't want to provoke people. Then I use free thinker or not religious.

--IMM

for mentally challenged people.

I'm personally not interested in this idea. Sounds too "Logan's Run"

While we struggle to define ourselves and pick out a nice shiney name, we look a bit silly.

I like Atheist and Infidel--freethinker is Ok--but I want something that is a bit negative and maybe even slightly foreboding. I want to be as far from the--as someone refered to upthread--happy-clappy praise-oids as I possibley can. Debauched Godless Heathen Liberal Socialist works for me too.

Dog is my co-pilot!